Light Portrait, Eqipment?

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>I will do a portrait, I want to use a rather simple-low-budget equipment, with possibly high quality to the aesthetic of what I need the picture to be like. I hope you might be able to help me get to the point with it a bit.<br>

picture: portrait, clear, stripped of any possible easthetic the euipment might add, objective, light<br>

(please have a look at the portrait "Lutz" by Wolfgang Tillmans) <br>

situation: no artificial light, inside (near window)<br>

simple SLR camerabody: ?<br>

lens:?<br>

Hope for any helpful answers, best, Philip</p>

<p>A good portrait is about good lighting (and natural light is seldom really great) and your ability to get the best out of a model. A SLR or better can help, but a compact could already do just fine.<br>

I would seriously reconsider the idea of working with only natural light. Effective use of flash or additional lights can look far more natural, and leave you with much better quality. I'd only go for natural light if the light falling through the window is sun at sunrise or sunset (golden hours).</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>stripped of any possible easthetic the euipment might add, objective, light</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not possible, in my view. Your choice of medium (film/digital), plus your post processing, plus printing - it will all add some easthetic. Second, there is no such thing as an objective photo. Your choice of light, focal length, angles - it is all subjective, and renders<em> your particular</em> photo. So, once you have the scene set up, look for what works, rather than pre-impose something because of gear selected.<br>

Maybe, what you might be looking for is a detached style, where you as a photographer do not impose yourself too much. But that still requires you to handle the model in such a way that he or she acts like you're not there.</p>

<p>What gear do you already have?</p>

<p>Your requirements says: "no artificial light"", so, what is left ? - large white panel diffuser.<br>

any SLR, or DSLR. or a mirrorless latest model.<br>

portrait lens.<br>

... a book on portrait photography ? - if this is your first portrait to take.</p>

<p>Usually more questions and details are asked after taking hundreds of portraits.</p>

 

<p>thank you so much for your responses guys.<br>

I will want to use Nikon. For the lens I really depends on what to find out about its qualities a bit more.<br>

Wouter, what do you think has been done for the picture by Wolfgang Tilmanns technically?<br>

Frank, thank you, I will get to it, using a panel diffuser. The books are very different I think.</p>

What do you guys think about which portrait lens and camera might be used to come to a

<p>

pictures as this one:

<p>

<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_FOWC4rj_a8Y/SckpRcaYfaI/AAAAAAAABFQ/X-xkL44BnHQ/s400/lutz-photo-by-wolfgang-tillmans.jpg">http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_FOWC4rj_a8Y/SckpRcaYfaI/AAAAAAAABFQ/X-xkL44BnHQ/s400/lutz-photo-by-wolfgang-tillmans.jpg</a>

<p>

or this picture:

<p>

<a href="http://amaurer23.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/wolfgang-tillmans-food1.jpg%3Fw%3D640">http://amaurer23.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/wolfgang-tillmans-food1.jpg%3Fw%3D640</a>

<p>Philip,</p>

<p>As per the TOU and Community Guidelines, please only post images to photo.net that you yourself have created. If you need to reference another photographer's work, please use a link.</p>

<p>Thank you.</p>

<p>Both of the photos you referenced look to me as if someone just used a point-and-shoot and snapped the shots. The second (food) photo has very hard light, probably from a window, and the first (portrait) is very flat with no definition. Neither is properly lit.</p>

<p>As Wouter says, it's not about the equipment.</p>

<p>The two photos could have been taken with a Canon Elph100, which costs all of $120 right now. </p>

<p>Philip, I respectfully disagree with Wouter on the use of artificial light though I'm in agreement with him on most of the other issues. (camera used etc.) From my own archives I can show you satisfying (to me) examples of<a href="../photo/15316434"> natural light</a> or <a href="../photo/15441080">studio light</a>. Pick & choose your favourite. It all depends on your intended result. Illumination from a<a href="../photo/12972840"> large window</a> with or without a reflector can produce nice results. So can controlled <a href="../photo/9710556">studio lighting</a>. Don't discount<a href="../photo/14752333"> outdoor </a><a href="../photo/15316434">natural light</a> either. The true artist will find a way to make the existing light flattering. The Lutz portrait you give as an example looks like a snapshot to me and there's nothing wrong with that as long as the intended result was achieved. This type of shot doesn't excite me so you & I may never find common ground. By the way, welcome to Photo.net. Best, LM.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For the lens I really depends on what to find out about its qualities a bit more.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The choice of lens is decided by what you need.... not by the lens itself. For portraits, you can use a wide variety of lenses. It all depends on how much distance, how much of the body you want to include, if you want specific effects for perspective etc. If you're not working under "controlled circumstances", then often you just make do with the lens you have mounted. To me, it makes not a lot of sense selecting a lens and then make the photo work with that.<br>

So, which gear do you already have? Or what do you intend to get? If you do not have anything yet, get started with the kitlens, it will work just fine.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Wouter, what do you think has been done for the picture by Wolfgang Tilmanns technically?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nothing particular, but I would not bet too much on only natural light based on seeing these 2 photos only. Like others, I find the portrait really nothing special, and I do not see a shot like this requiring any special equipment.<br>

___<br>

Len, I agree with you on your disagreement with me ;-) I did not want to intend that natural light will never work, but I read too often and see too often people insisting on it, ending up with diffuse flat lighting which is not particularly good looking and lacks contrast.</p>

<p>thanks anyways</p>